Point of law: A daughter of a coparcener by birth becomes a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. She has the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son and is subject to the same liabilities and disabilities to the coparcenary property as that of a son –

JUDGMENT :

These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.1575 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, dated 19.11.2014. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession as well as for mesne profits.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the suit R.F.A.No.689 of 2015 has been filed by the plaintiff—Anjanamma N., while R.F.A.No.999 of 2015 has been is filed by defendant No.1—N.Manjunath and R.F.A.No.1000 of 2015 has been filed by Smt.Prameela and N.M.Arun—defendant Nos.6 and 7 in the suit.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court and where additional respondents have been added before this Court by their status in these appeals.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession as well as for mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule properties, being twenty-three items (23 items) of immovable properties described in detail in the schedule appended to the plaint, seeking 5/16th share in the said properties; for declaring that the sale deed dated 28.09.2005 executed by defendant No.1, his wife and children in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of suit schedule Item No.12 as null and void and not binding on the share of the plaintiff and for mesne profits.

5. According to the plaintiff-Anjanamma N., she and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of late Hanumaiah and his second wife Narayanamma. Defendant No.3 is the third wife of late Hanumaiah.

6. For an easy understanding of the relationship between the parties, the genealogical tree as provided in paragraph No.2 of the plaint is depicted as under with the relevant details:

(a ) As per the genealogical tree, it is noted that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of Hanumaiah through his second wife Narayanamma (since deceased) and his two other wives had no issues. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) comprising of the paternal grand-father of the plaintiff-Munishamanna and his wife-Sonnamma, who died intestate leaving behind his wife and sons-Annayappa and Hanumaiah who have also died.

(b) Annayappa and his wife-Kempamma also died intestate without any issues. Hanumaiah was the only surviving son of Munishamanna, and the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the estate of the deceased Hanumaiah. It is averred that Hanumaiah’s first wife-Ramakka had died without any issues and Parvathamma—the third wife (defendant No.3) also has no issues. That the mother of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2, Narayanamma—the second wife of Hanumaiah, has also died.

(c) Hanumaiah died on 09.04.1988 opening the succession under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) as the parties are governed by Mitakshara law. According to the plaintiff, on the death of Hanumaiah, the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the estate, namely the coparcenary properties along with the deceased Hanumaiah in equal share i.e., 1/4th each. Out of 1/4th share of Hanumaiah, the children of Hanumaiah as well as his widow—defendant No.3/Parvathamma were entitled to equal shares. Consequently, the share of each of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 is 5/16th share and the share of the widow of Hanumaiah-defendant No.3, namely Parvathamma, is